Posted on 12/27/2008 2:48:02 PM PST by NYer
Q. Why can’t Protestants receive communion at the Catholic Church?
A. To protect them from Judgment.
1 Corinthians 11: 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be
guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.
Since, Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as we do, they do not discern or recognize that Jesus’ body is present under the appearance of bread and wine. We would be allowing them to eat and drink judgment upon themselves. The prohibtion is actually very charitable but, unfortunately, it is usually seen as a rejection.
Evidence of this interpretation of this passage is supported by St. Justin the Martyr :
“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true…”
-Justin Martyr -FIRST APOLOGY, 66,20–(150 A.D.)
Q. Why do we call the bread “The Host”?
A. Our use of this term, to refer to the consecrated bread, comes from the Latin word hostia, which means ‘victim’. We believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the consecrated bread and wine on our altars. The mass is a re-presentation of the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross. Therefore, Jesus is the victim of sacrifice and we call the bread the host/victim to help us remember that it is no longer bread but the Real Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ given to us to strengthen and keep us on the journey to Heaven.
It's amazing. When I saw this thread at comment 3, I almost posted "uh-oh." If the Christian virtues we are supposed to pray for, emulate and reflect are Humility, Charity, Poverty of Spirit, Obedience, Piety, etc., some of the things said here can be interpreted as exactly the opposite.
Having no knowledge of protestant theology, I won't even attempt to comment on it. Catholic, OTOH, I'm still learning apologetics, but I'll give it a shot.
The "we're all Christians, can't we just get along" line is straight out of freemasonry, which has been condemned for teaching error for at least 250 years. It's just too, uh, soft, I guess, and based on something less than conviction. Well, and it's wrong.
In order to accept Transubstantiation, or the changing of bread and wine to the Body and Precious Blood, one must accept Apostolic Succession - that a direct line of consecrated priests has passed from Christ to us for the past 2,000 years. And it is an acceptance, as a child would accept (I think that's in the Bible someplace). What helped me understand it was seeing a priesthood ordination. Actually watching the hands be blessed and that power passed is an amazing thing. An unbroken line was before me.
Being in full communion, as I said earlier, is about not being in a state of sin. A lot of protestants say, If you believe you are saved. Well, for Catholics, if you believe, then maintenance of your salvation is up to you. We do believe that Christ passed on the power to forgive sin by breathing on the twelve and saying, "Sin you forgive is forgiven, sin you retain is retained." I know a lot of people who skip out on Confession because they think it is a man-made thing, but the Church teaches that it isn't, and to be in full Communion, you have to be free of mortal sin. There's that accept what the Church teaches thing again. As to the actions of men, we have a saying, "The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops." The Church is perfect, the men within it are not. That's the way it's always been.
We think of the Bible in a different light than protestants, apparently. It is one of three pillars of the Church along with the Magisterium (the teaching arm) and Sacred Tradition which tells us what scripture doesn't, but what is still part of what is taught. How scripture is interpreted is one of the things that is passed down. That's why translations have to be approved. We also use it a little differently, and, in worship it seems, a lot more. If one carries a book to Church, it's a Missal so that everything you need for Mass (or Vespers, or Matins, Lauds, any one of the Liturgy of the Hours) is in one place. Otherwise, the reading would be over before you get to the right chapter and verse. People are encouraged to read scripture at home and how they do that and how often is up to them.
As to whether things are "biblical" - not everything the Church teaches is and never has been. That doesn't mean that it's not true. Just for example take the Stations of the Cross. A good number of the Stations are not in any of the Gospels, but they have been part of Catholic teaching since the first century and the locations of all of them are identified in Jerusalem.
If fighting the early heresies was anything like these threads, it's a wonder the Church survived.
**And in my opinion, the Catholic mass is devoid of passion and simply is rote recitation for rituals sake. **
You might think this because you don’t understand the Mass or the mystery of transubstantiation.
I very often am moved to tears during the two parts of the MassL 1) The Liturgy of the Word (You believe in the Bible, don’t you?) 2) the litrugy of the Eucharist — this is the part that I judge you don’t understand. Keep reading and learning — you may be the next Catholic convert.
Jesus words, “this is my body” should be taken symbolically because it falls within a long list of symbolic statements Christ said: “I am the bread,” (John 6:41), “I am the vine,” (John 15:5), “I am the door,” (John 10:7,9), “I am the good shepherd,”(John 10:11,12), “You are the world the salt, (Matthew 5:13), “You are the light of the world the salt, (Matthew 5:14)
Exactly...But some of them willl blatantly lie and claim the Eucharist nonsense was taught by ALL the Catholic church fathers from the get-go...
And of course I agree with the rest of your post...Most of the Catholics don't spend enough time in the scriptures to know what it says...They just copy and paste the mantra from the institution...
Because the universal church isn’t.
I don’t think Baptists believe that Satan and the angels have salvation in the same sense that humans do. Their deal is different.
Judas, Cain and Abel, Adam and Eve, Esau, there are many others that knew God, knew what he wanted and turned away from him. Satan and the angels, they had a one time shot is all. They had to choose, no go backs. We on the other hand, have the ability to repent and be forgiven. Satan and the angels lived in heaven and knew without a doubt what they were giving up, so no do overs. My point is even those who have partaken in the heavenly gift, if they should fall away, their end is worse than if they never knew God at all. Adam and Eve absolutely had heaven, they had Eden and no original sin. They walked and talked with God.
Great post!
Or perhaps to me it carries no passion? I spent 12 years being educated as a Catholic, have family who are in the priesthood and are Catholic religious educators, and have attended mass around the world.
To me, the Catholic mass is too ritualistic. I am much more spiritually fed by the services at my Free Methodist church. Come to my church, you may become a Protestant...:)
Doctrinally, I have issues with the Catholic Church. However, I accept that for millions and millions it is the way to experience a relationship with God. Whatever brings one into that relationship should be encouraged, as long as it is Scripturally based!
Well, the way this thread is going, I'm afraid to ask, but please say more.
Praise God for his loving mercy on us!
Was “except you eat my flesh, and drink my blood” symbolic?
If so, why did he let those who understood him literally and objected leave on this misapprehension?
The truth of transubstantiation had already been presented to the Apostles who remained, they would have had no confusion on His meaning at the time.
“One year later, Jesus instituted Eucharistic Communion (Mt. 26:26) saying of the bread, “This is my body” and also of the cup, “This is my blood.” “
What Jesus said is quite simple and quite clear - He said “This is...” He did not say “This becomes...” He did not say “This represents...”
It is not about Transsubstanciation. It is not about Transliteration. It is about accepting what it says.
No where in the Word of God does it say anything other than “This is my body”...”This is my blood”. As a Christian I accept that it IS, and I feel no prohibition for myself if I take communion in a Catholic church.
We invite you back at any time. It sounds like you are a baptized Catholic. Unless you have filled out tons of paperwork and had a hearing in front of a panel — you are still a Catholic.
There are many churches that have classes that can explain the questions you have, or you can find a priest in your area — wherever you are stationed — and just sit down with him and ask your questions.
I prayerfully hope you will listen to the answers.
So Baptist Churches have communion? With wine and everything?
You don't get that either...They didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God...And they believed he was being literal...That's why they were repulsed...
You guys always ignore everything in the chapter that doens't say 'eat my flesh'...
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
THAT'S WHY Jesus did not try to explain this was just a parable...Because they didn't believe in him regardless of the flesh eating issue...
The Apostles didn't believe it either...The reason THEY weren't shocked at the Last Supper is because when they ate the bread and drank the juice, they could see they were eating bread and drinking juice...Just as you can see you are eating bread and drinking wine...
Besides, there is no prescription any where in the scriptures for anyone to turn bread into flesh...It doesn't exist in the scriptures, therefore, it doesn't exist...It's a religious ritual...It's not a biblical truth...
A Protestant can receive communion in a Catholic Church just as easily as John Kerry, or as anyone else. You go up and take it. The priest won't ask you for ID, or expect you to know a secret handshake.
You are expected to respect the beliefs of the Church when you enter it. If according to the Church you should not receive communion, then you should cross your arms, with your right hand on your left shoulder and your left hand on your right shoulder. The priest will give you his blessing, but you will not receive the body and blood of Christ.
I'm not a Christian or religious at all and I know this. You are either ignorant or disingenuous.
Never baptized Catholic; I chose to be baptized in my Free Methodist church when I was 17. I chose it, as John the Baptist made an example with Jesus. Baptism is chosen by the person being baptized, it’s not conferred by anyone else.
1. Open communion allows anyone who professes to be a Christian to take communion.
2. Close communion occurs whenever only members of a Baptist church can take communion.
3. Closed communion takes place when only members of that local congregation can participate.
Back then, your church just murdered the 'heretics'...That's how your church survived...
No other “denomination” can take Communion unless they join the Catholic Church (which is not a denomination). Join, take the necessary classes and become a Catholic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.